681 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2020
  2. Aug 2020
    1. I'm just trying out the "Reply to comment" button here. Well, it seems like it doesn't quote the text... that's really the feature I'd like to exposed. When responding to a large message (email or otherwise), I like to quote various parts and respond in line.
  3. Jul 2020
    1. One may expect Array#- to behave like mathematical subtraction or difference when it doesn't. One could be forgiven to expect the following behavior: [1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4] - [1,2,3,4] => [1,2,3,4]
    2. I'll freely admit I was surprised by this behavior myself since I needed to obtain an Array with only one instance of each item in the argument array removed.
  4. journals.sagepub.com journals.sagepub.com
    1. Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Hilpert, P., Cantarero, K., Frackowiak, T., Ahmadi, K., Alghraibeh, A. M., Aryeetey, R., Bertoni, A., Bettache, K., Blumen, S., Błażejewska, M., Bortolini, T., Butovskaya, M., Castro, F. N., Cetinkaya, H., Cunha, D., David, D., David, O. A., … Pierce, J. D. (2017). Preferred Interpersonal Distances: A Global Comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(4), 577–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117698039

  5. Jun 2020
  6. journals.sagepub.com journals.sagepub.com
    1. Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Hilpert, P., Cantarero, K., Frackowiak, T., Ahmadi, K., Alghraibeh, A. M., Aryeetey, R., Bertoni, A., Bettache, K., Blumen, S., Błażejewska, M., Bortolini, T., Butovskaya, M., Castro, F. N., Cetinkaya, H., Cunha, D., David, D., David, O. A., … Pierce, J. D. (2017). Preferred Interpersonal Distances: A Global Comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(4), 577–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117698039

    1. McBride, O., Murphy, J., Shevlin, M., Gibson Miller, J., Hartman, T. K., Hyland, P., Levita, L., Mason, L., Martinez, A. P., McKay, R., Stocks, T. V. A., bennett, kate m, Vallières, F., Karatzias, T., Valiente, C., Vazquez, C., & Bentall, R. (2020). An overview of the context, design and conduct of the first two waves of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/z3q5p

    1. However, a ActiveRecord::Rollback within the nested transaction will be caught by the block of the nested transaction, but will be ignored by the outer transaction, and not cause a roll back! To avoid this unexpected behaviour, you have to explicitly tell rails for each transaction to indeed use proper nesting: CopyActiveRecord::Base.transaction(joinable: false, requires_new: true) do # inner code end This is a safer default for working with custom transactions.
    1. transaction calls can be nested. By default, this makes all database statements in the nested transaction block become part of the parent transaction. For example, the following behavior may be surprising: User.transaction do User.create(username: 'Kotori') User.transaction do User.create(username: 'Nemu') raise ActiveRecord::Rollback end end creates both “Kotori” and “Nemu”. Reason is the ActiveRecord::Rollback exception in the nested block does not issue a ROLLBACK. Since these exceptions are captured in transaction blocks, the parent block does not see it and the real transaction is committed.

      How is this okay??

      When would it ever be the desired/intended behavior for a raise ActiveRecord::Rollback to have absolutely no effect? What good is the transaction then??

      What happened to the principle of least surprise?

      Is there any reason we shouldn't just always use requires_new: true?

      If, like they say, the inner transaction "become[s] part of the parent transaction", then if anything, it should roll back the parent transaction too — not roll back nothing.

  7. May 2020
    1. Betsch, C., Wieler, L., Bosnjak, M., Ramharter, M., Stollorz, V., Omer, S., Korn, L., Sprengholz, P., Felgendreff, L., Eitze, S., & Schmid, P. (2020). Germany COVID-19 Snapshot MOnitoring (COSMO Germany): Monitoring knowledge, risk perceptions, preventive behaviours, and public trust in the current coronavirus outbreak in Germany. https://doi.org/10.23668/PSYCHARCHIVES.2776

    1. Hey there. We see you’ve been busy reading, which is fantastic, so we’ve promoted you up a trust level! We’re really glad you’re spending time with us and we’d love to know more about you. Take a moment to fill out your profile, or feel free to start a new topic.
    1. Unscrupulous providers are incentivized to use inefficient or malicious means to increase break/fix work and thus increase their revenue.
    1. While this is illegal and can result in criminal and civil penalties, your cooperation may make you eligible for up to a US$50,000 reward.

      Might not this motivate someone to conspire with someone else, one to commit the crime and one to collect the reward? Probably mitigated by a contingency that the reward may only be collected if criminal is successfully charged and prosecuted?

    1. Unexpected features “Unexpected” features are those that are unrelated to the add-on’s primary function, and are not likely from the add-on name or description to be expected by a user installing that add-on. Should an add-on include any unexpected feature that falls into one of the following categories: Potentially compromises user privacy or security (like sending data to third parties) Changes default settings like the new tab page, homepage or search engine Makes unexpected changes to the browser or web content Includes features or functionality not related to the add-on’s core function(s) Then the “unexpected” feature(s) must adhere to all of the following requirements: The add-on description must clearly state what changes the add-on makes. All changes must be “opt-in”, meaning the user has to take non-default action to enact the change. Changes that prompt the user via the permissions system don’t require an additional opt-in. The opt-in interface must clearly state the name of the add-on requesting the change.
  8. Apr 2020
    1. So in the case of Chrome, the developers have essentially said "we will leave this to the user to decide in their preferences whether they want autocomplete to work or not. If you don't want it, don't enable it in your browser". However, it appears that this is a little over-zealous on their part for my liking, but it is the way it is.